There's a thread here about non-professionals at events, and the threat they pose to working pros who are sanctioned by the event organizers.
I've got a viewpoint, and I'm sure it'll be unpopular. Here it is - If you're truly a pro, then let the quality of your work speak for you. If you're unsure about your ability to compete against an obvious amateur, then I suggest hanging up your shingle and get a nice civil service job.
Its not about all the time and money you've invested in equipment. Its about being better than the guy off the street, by using your imaging skills and business acumen. If they produce a finished product that is better and cheaper than yours, and do so in a lawful manner, then they deserve the business. But as stated below, I don't think you have much to worry about.
As far as I'm concerned, your "Official" status means that you have better access in terms of time and location. I believe that "Official" status also confers the right to be the sole marketer of photos at the event. That status confers a huge competitive advantage, because you can openly and directly market your wares to the attendees, while they are at the event.
I once photographed an event at which there was no "Official" shooter, and attempted to market the photos afterward. I sold a total of three photos. If I had set up a booth and marketed packages on site, I would've made a killing. That is the competitive advantage that an "official" photographer gets - inexpensive, direct access to the sales market. A display of your finished work will easily distinguish yourself from the kid with a Kodak.
On a practical note, with the proliferation of small, high resolution, cheap digicams, you'll never stop unauthorized shooters anyway. Why cause yourself the aggravation?
Its one thing to have exclusivity in your agreement, but by insisting on exclusivity against obvious amateurs on game day, you come off looking petty. If you repeatedly do so, the organizers just might roll their eyes the next time you bid on an event. The soccer mom who was forced to put down her camera will probably tell a few dozen friends about the incident. Courtesy gets you repeat business, but bad news travels at light speed.
Its about perception, not reality. By demanding your contract rights, you'll be perceived as demanding by the organizers. There's a difference between being sanctioned as an event photographer, and being a professional. Which one are you?
I have an exclusivity clause in my contracts that specifically says we will not stop relatives from photographing kids. It says that the organizers will make reasonable efforts to stop professionals from photographing and selling photos. I'm not going to make a scene, throw a hissy fit and demand anyone with a camera gets dragged off the field. I just don't want another business person coming in and offering services to an organization that I'm giving a cut to as part of my contract. If there is no money being exchanged then I don't care what happens. when someone is taking money from my pocket, AND the organizations pocket, I have a problem with it. It's in both parties best interests to make sure both of us make money off of the situation. I'm confident that my products is competitively priced and as good, if not better then the competition, and thats why I get contracts. But why shouldn't I make sure I'm the only professional conducting business there, that's what I'm paying them a "sponsorship" for, why else am I cutting them a check? I'M paying THEM for the "privilege" of photographing their kids, the least they can do is make sure I'm getting my money's worth.
Good grief, do we really need another thread on this topic? This horse is getting a good solid beating here. So lets leave it at that vs starting new threads for people to get up on their soapbox.
At my events, I've made it a purpose to talk to people who are there shooting with non-amateur equipment just to see who they are. Never have I stopped them from shooting. Most times it's a pro in another area (PJ, wedding, etc.) who is shooting their kid/team. Other times it's a dad with money who decided to bump up the game. I've answered questions about gear from the latter, and asked questions from the former.
I do make a note that it's not worth my time to shoot a team when I know that a pro is shooting it and giving shots away to the team. I tell them that I won't stop them from doing that, but please don't do the same to other teams or try to sell. I had one PJ from the local paper laugh and said it's more work than it's worth for him to do it for his own team, and he was only doing it because his wife asked him! In fact, he stated he was waiting until I shot his daughter's team because I was allowed much better access than he was, and was jealous!
So not everyone here pounces on parents when they pull out a camera, be it Kodak EasyShare or a 1D3 with a 300/2.8 (although I will talk to the latter!).
Usually I just offer the offending photographers a piece of chocolate a piece of chocolate - having already removed it from the ex lax (sp?) foil. After about twenty minutes I don't see them again for the rest of the evening.
CTYankee wrote:
Good grief, do we really need another thread on this topic? This horse is getting a good solid beating here. So lets leave it at that vs starting new threads for people to get up on their soapbox.
Very well said.
IMO, a thread like this best be described as flame bait.
Littlebike wrote:
Usually I just offer the offending photographers a piece of chocolate a piece of chocolate - having already removed it from the ex lax (sp?) foil. After about twenty minutes I don't see them again for the rest of the evening.
Is this supposed to be a witty comment? I didn't get it
Konstantin Sirotkin:
Littlebike wrote:
Usually I just offer the offending photographers a piece of chocolate a piece of chocolate - having already removed it from the ex lax (sp?) foil. After about twenty minutes I don't see them again for the rest of the evening.
Is this supposed to be a witty comment? I didn't get it
It contains something that could make you run to the bathroom frequently.
higginsg wrote:
Flame bait? Referring to a post as "flame bait" isn't going to win you any friends, either.
I might also remind you of Forum Rule Number Two.
Flame bait may not be the best term. Generally posting unpopular sentiments in a new thread when the topic is already extensively discussed elsewhere (the same page mind you) is more aptly called 'trolling'. This thread is the very definition of trolling...or just a way to grab some attention. Neither are productive use of anyone's time or website bandwidth. Hopefully a mod will come along and take appropriate action and lock/delete it. Its already headed down the toilet. If you feel the need to speak your mind on the topic, I've already provided a link (but you already know where to find it...so why did you post an entirely new thread?)
I'm done feeding the troll, I hope others will do likewise.
higginsg wrote:
I might also remind you of Forum Rule Number Two.
I just checked the forum rules for this forum...the second rule is:
"Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own. You may not use or publish any of the photographs displayed on these pages without express permission from the original photographer. No exceptions."
Since this discussion has nothing to do with copyright lawas or misrepresented work, which rule are you really referring to?
